Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult documentary


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   rename  to adult non-pornographic website and cleanup.

In this case, consensus can be better assessed by examining individual points. The following have not been refuted:
 * 1) The term “adult documentary” is a neologism.
 * 2) The term “documentary” is not usually used for websites.
 * 3) The article is insufficiently sourced.
 * 4) The main author caused some problems by copying and pasting, but apologized for them and is obviously well intended.

Merge to sex education was briefly mentioned, but didn't find support.

Some editors wrote “Delete, original research and not encyclopedic.” This is a valid concern, and I considered the following pertinent points:
 * 1) The article contains some original research.
 * 2) Its references are not primary sources.
 * 3) There are some links to this article from other articles that add value to those articles.
 * 4) The problems can be fixed.
 * 5) The text itself is not controversial. Most of it, especially the lead, is obvious or common sense.
 * 6) There seems to be no harm in keeping this article until the problems have been addressed.

After weighing these points, I felt the way to address as many concerns as possible was to
 * 1) Give the article some time so that the reference issues can be addressed. If the problems persist 3 months from now, we can reconsider deletion.
 * 2) Rename the article. The only alternative offered, “adult non-pornographic websites”, while not perfect, addresses at least concern #2. However, we need to use the singular form per WP:NAME. &mdash; Sebastian 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adult documentary

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom. This was previously deleted via WP:PROD. This version is identical in every important respect to the previously deleted version. It seems a full debate is in order. PROD reasoning was: "Not notable. No secondary sources, "adult documentary" + website produces no relevant hits on google news archive or google books." Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per PROD reasoning. -- ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV 13  other crap 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit and Keep One of the main points in the article discusses how categorization is difficult in mainstream areas. In other words, it would not be expected to be found in google news or google books. Nevertheless, Adult Documentaries are part of many people's Internet experience. They may not be a part of your Internet experience, but they are relevant to millions of other people in the world. Also, the number of these types of sites is increasing. An interesting example is http://www.caitlainscorner.com/ (Please see the list of most popular articles on right hand side of the home page.) The problem, as described in the Adult Documentary article, is that so many people would see it's about sex/masturbation and consider it "Adult". Meanwhile, so many others claim it is a "Documentary" format. Some say reading the pages on this type of site will eventually cause sexual arousal, but others claim it also provides serious information. This is the reality of the "Adult Documentary". I agree that the article needs work and maybe needs more verifiable research, but it is definitely encyclopedia-worthy. 173.17.150.77 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — 173.17.150.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Edit and Keep. Clean up of reference(s) and external links should help. Overall I find this notable.  IShadowed  ✰  07:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete while i agree that the subject of documentary films about mature subjects, such as sexuality, that are shot in a nonpornographic manner, possibly without nudity, is notable, i dont think the name of the article works. it doesnt seem to have that common usage. heres a film which would qualify, and the category terms IMDB uses dont match (i know imdb is not a RS, but this would show common use if anything would). i would prefer to have a section in the Documentary film article that discusses this topic, and the problems associated with it, with another mention in Pornographic film, linking to the doc film section. any good references here could be moved to that article, with a few sentences added there as a start to a larger section. This article is just too horrible to try to salvage any of it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Afaik there are no secondary sources about this subject (non-pornographic websites about sex), under this name or any other. If there are, maybe add the content to Sex education.  The references in the current version of the article are too garbled to tell what they are, but the references in the version that was deleted were useless.  Fails WP:N.Prezbo (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment this is clearly a recreation of an old article via cut-and-paste. Note that that article included sources.  I'd ask that A) the old article be undeleted and put in it's place for now and B) if A isn't done and this is kept, we need to do that for licensing reasons. No real opinion on the article itself. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I was the one who did the cut and paste copy that others are talking about here. I am sorry for doing that, and I now realize how it can cause problems. I could not find the most current version of the article. It was like it just vanished. Regarding the article itself, I think we should keep it. When I was an editor for the Open Directory Project, we had a discussion just like this. The other ODP editors referred to certain types of web sites as "Adult Documentaries". Everyone knew the meaning of it, and they used the term without question. Some people who study human sexuality at a college level often use the term. (I know that from first hand experience.) I can see how it would be difficult to find places where the term is used openly on the Web, but a lot of people use the term to describe web sites which have content that falls somewhere in between porn and education. I remember one site we discussed was Raw Psych -- They use the term "Adult Documentaries" in the first paragraph on the first page. Other sites use the term also, but I can't remember them off hand. I would suspect they may not be listed in the regular Google searches. The term also might not be used in the exact form as we have it here. I am interested in human sexuality and taxonomy, which is why I have a such a strong opinion about the article. Other pages on WikiPedia have linked to the article, so it has some type of notability. The article needs work and more verifiable explanations, but I don't think the reasons for wanting to fully delete the article should be the standards we use. There were a lot of other people who contributed and edited the article, so it must have meaning to at least some people. The article has been there for a couple of years, and it is not an orphan article. It belongs in the WikiPedia encyclopedia. I realize it is controversial, but the term "Adult Documentary" should definitely not be the reason to fully delete the article. APatcher (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP It makes sense to me. Thanks, AOCynstamps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.96.174 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. why does this have links, and our article doesnt? was it cut and pasted from here? whoever did that needs to restore the links. by the way, im searching, and i cannot find, so far, more than 1 use of this term anywhere, including the external links provided. the links in this article are to sites that are of this nature, but none of them, except 1, refer to themselves as "adult documentary" and the one that does doesnt appear to be notable. i ill check the links in this mirror, to see if its mentioned.ok, 2 of these links use this phrase. that makes 3 uses out of the multiple references provided. and nothing else i can find on google. all of these uses are at purely commercial sites. no indication that this phrase is used other than as a marketing tool (not necessarily a negative, but indicative of lack of notability), and its not widespread. perhaps the people arguing that this is a notable term can provide some evidence that it is. and i apologize for misunderstanding the use in my previous post above, but my "vote" remains the same.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've fixed the violation of the license by restoring the deleted edits, and I've reverted to the wikified version. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I'm relisting as the above discussion was somewhat sidetracked by the cut-and-paste issue. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but retitle I agree such sites asa class are  notable, but I do not see any justification of the title used for the article. To me., a documentary is a film, and an adult documentary is a film that presents a factual or editorial view about sexuality is a way suitable for adults who wish to see sexually frank material but not pornography. There are indeed many important websites that correspond to this, but I do not see that the term is   used of them.  Looking even more generally,  I note our disam page on Documentary (disambiguation) indicates it might also apply to the related genres of radio and photography, but it does not include websites. I see that a Gsearch on Documentary website either as a phrase or not as a phrase gives mainly articles on websites about documentary films or videos , not anything corresponding to a news or opinion or discussion or Q&A site. Unfortunately I have no idea what a proper title would be. We might have to use the clumsy "adult non-pornographic websites" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * I can see some use in a list of academic sexuality websites. good idea. i sincerely doubt we could include any commercial websites, as most would probably have banner ads even if they arent selling pornography themselves. im not a prude, but you cant call a website nonpornographic if it actually contains any pornographic images or writings. Lists of websites doesnt have much, and List of educational video websites may be a model for such a list. my vote has not changed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not even clear to me that this is an actual recognized topic, and certainly not by this particular name. I can find barely any sources that say that an "adult documentary" is a kind of web site, as opposed to a kind of documentary film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research and not encyclopedic. Someidiot (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit and Keep per above. Potentially merge somewhere if possible. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as protologism and synthesis. An article on either explicit documentaries or instructional videos about sex, or websites with explicit instruction about sex might merit creation if there are none such already, but there's no reason to start one using this title or to preserve the editing history or anything in it. Шизомби (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.